There is no Jack the ripper

[corey123]

Phil,

If it had been two killers involved in the C5 it would only be one serial killer not two.

Thanks

[Phil Carter]

Corey,
You are quite right- ofcourse.
But its just possible that it was preferable to Anderson and co for the press to be making a massive focus on the lesser worry ie the series of murders than the Special Commission as the potential" revelations" could cause a major furore and massive damages concerning the role of The Times newspaper in publishing forged letters penned by Pigott about Parnell and some defamatory articles penned by Robert Anderson in the Times in 1887 .Robert Anderson"s other role as "Spy Master General"was possibly going to also come to light in this Special Commission. The series of murders coincided with the possibility of these revelations.Its also the case that the government had had to cave in and appoint this "Special Commission"- to look into the defamation of the character of the Irish Home Rule MP, Charles Parnell".It began its buisiness on 22nd October 1888 and by Easter 1889 two of the Government"s hired agents, Richard Pigott and double agent Frank Millen were dead,one by his own hand the other from a sudden seizure!

Norma,

Simple, precise and clear... encore!

best wishes

Phil

[Natalie Severn]

Actually Phil these days I tend to think Jack the Ripper was responsible for several torso murders as well as other murders that happened in Whitechapel in 1888/89......and later!
I suspect he was a true "virtuoso" as a serial killer!

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

If it had been two killers involved in the C5 it would only be one serial killer not two.

Thanks

Corey!!!!!

Please Corey... how many murders does it take to be a serial killer? If it is with the same hand and same M.O ?

4? 3? 2?....8?

The Torso murderer was ONE, JTR TWO... if JTR only killed 3, but another serial killer was going at the same time, with 2... thats THREE serials..

Please Corey, semantics and wind ups are pointless.

best wishes, RESPECTFULLY,

Phil

[Natalie Severn]

Norma,

Simple, precise and clear... encore!

best wishes

Phil

Thankyou kindly Sir!

Best wishes Phil,
Norma

[corey123]

Phil,

The definition of a serial murderer is a murderer who kills 3 or more people within the span of weeks.

Ok the torso murderer is ONE
Jack is TWO
Then you have either a guy who killed one or two people, NOT a serial killer.

Unless you are talking about a canonical 6.

yours truly

[Phil Carter]

Actually Phil these days I tend to think Jack the Ripper was responsible for several torso murders as well as other murders that happened in Whitechapel in 1888/89......and later!
I suspect he was a true "virtuoso" as a serial killer!

Norma,

Thanks ..that has really helped the C5 situation..hahahaha

Most are having trouble with 3, 4 or 5... now the Torso ones on top.

Blimey, Macnaghten really did make a boo boo! lol

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

The definition of a serial murderer is a murderer who kills 3 or more people within the span of weeks.

Ok the torso murderer is ONE
Jack is TWO
Then you have either a guy who killed one or two people, NOT a serial killer.

Unless you are talking about a canonical 6.

yours truly

Corey,

It is YOUR rules I am playing by... YOU INCLUDE TABRAM! (your own words)

Torso killer...ONE

JTR....TWO (lets say for the sake of semantics..Tabram, Nicholls, Chapman)

A N OTHER... three murders... THREE

still not possible? you have TWO possibly three serials going on at the same time.

YOU have included Tabram.

best wishes

Phil

[corey123]

Phil,

Why didnt you say you were including Tabram?

This isnt my thread so I was speaking purely C5.

Oh well, yes it is possible that we have three serial murderers running around in 1888.

But unlikely that two of them sprout from the C(in my case)6.

[joelhall]

Joel, please,

what more do you need to suspect one killer ?

How many killers have pulled out women's intestines with their own hands, before and after 1888, in the same area ? Without any other motive than the obscure will and desire of doing so, or worse (ie: go sleeping with an uterus in the pocket) ?

Amitiés,
David

proof would be a good thing for starters!

history is littered with people being disemboweled, right from executions in roman times, until the drugs gangs of south america and other countries as a warning to enemies and informants, even to genital mutilation amongst some tribal people.

before these killings, emma smith was raped with some instrument which tore through her peritoneum and had her ear cut. this was done by a group of men, not a lone person. lord knows what he motive here was. im not familiar with many cases like this also, but i do know that one particular lady was executed by the romans by being raped by a specially trained giraffe! im sure there was no precendent for this either, but it happened. christians were alledgedly burned to death by being forced into a metal chair above flames and pressed down by guards with sticks. clearly the imagination of humans when it comes to evil acts shows no boundaries.

my point here of course has nothing to do with the romans or executions, but that the idea of mutilation is of course not a new one but serial murder at that time was, and i for one do not know enough of the victims backgrounds to confirm or deny any theory. indeed how many serial killers were there prowling the streets before this? perhaps there were hundreds, which is perfectly possible, but noone had ever put two and two together. or perhaps this was born out of changes in society, who knows?

also i do not reject the idea of a lone killer, i simply stated that my (current it should be noted) belief is that there was no lone killer. a belief is simply that - something i believe based on what i see. this doesnt make it gospel to me (thats a different type of belief), but it fits with my own interpretation of the facts.

id also note that many of the clues which suggest serial killers in other cases involve the use of forensic evidence showing a definite link, or telling clues linking murders together to the same person(s) left behind by the killer, such as a precise correlation between two pieces of evidence either large or minute. we do not have a definite tell of the same man - nothing he had to do to mark his work, no trace evidence which shows a similar murderer, no type of 'calling card' for want of a better expression. all we had is somewhat similar circumstances regarding the crimes. i wont discount something people may think of as unlikely simply because it just looks far-fetched based on superficial evidence.

im sure the police today dont tie in every shooting in manchester to the same man, if they all happened to be shot in the chest - they have means by which to confirm this, such as ballistic evidence.

without these there is no definite evidence of a lone killer, and no matter what arguments are put forward we cannot say for definite that 5 women were all killed by the same man.

and remember serial killers do not always work alone, e.g. brady and hindley, the wests, washington sniper.

jtr is constantly being likened to other serial killers - but like you say, how many have actually ripped out a womans intestines with their own hands in the same area after 1888? i dont know the answer to this i am afraid. (hopefully someone else here will know though).

all i can say about this serial killer is he went on his murderous rampage, and then stopped after a few weeks. people have attempted to profile this killer, but even the profiles dont seem to make any sense. a sexual killer who makes off with part of a kidney? the uterus would be much easier. if we are to assume kelly was a victim of the same man, then why not the uterus in this instance. clearly he had the time, and judging by the extent of the injuries he would certainly have come across this? edowes had her face mutilated, why not the others in the same manner?

what exactly is the killers motive here? to kill and take off with anything he can get? to just rip people up for the sake of it? if we are to assume that this is the work of a serial killer, surely he had an objective, or some reason which made him feel the urge to kill. nothing is particularly telling about these crimes to suggest what it is.

still all opinion of course.

[protohistorian]

I think perhaps we are losing focus on the issue. There is a group of 5 identified by senior police as related. We know the police were less than stellar in their grasp of the phenomena occurring. Why then should we deferentially treat their opinion by adhering dogmatically to their grouping? I submit the fact that many other murders appear in the whitechapel file indicates they were actively investigating other murders that could be related to their grouping. Knowing as we do the limited basis they were using to associate murders ( M.O. specifically ) we cannot reasonably conclude the c5 grouping as sacrosanct. Respectfully Dave

[DVV]

Oh well, yes it is possible that we have three serial murderers running around in 1888.

Yeah, all in the same restricted area, all necro-sadists, all with enough stomach, all after the same kind of prey...
That would explain there is nothing to be compared with, years before and years after.
Yeah...
Or am I mistaken ?

Amitiés,
David

[corey123]

Dave,

What is your opinion, a serial killer or something else?

[corey123]

Yeah, all in the same restricted area, all necro-sadists, all with enough stomach, all after the same kind of prey...
That would explain there is nothing to be compared with, years before and years after.
Yeah...
Or am I mistaken ?

Amitiés,
David

David,

Had the thought occured to you that I said that mearly to stop the endless arguing?

Of coarse I dont think three killers to be at large.

I think there was the torso murderer and Jack the Ripper, then quite a few violent single time or dual killers. Perhaps a few copycats after 1888.

[Natalie Severn]

Joe,
Personally I dont accept Emma"s story about her attackers.The police were completely baffled by herstory and said so at her inquest since they had a number of beat bobbies in the area and NOT ONE heard or saw anything like Emma described happened.Also Emma lied about her job and marital situation to the doctors at the Whitechapel hospital.
The last person to see Emma alive BEFORE her attack was her friend Margaret Hames who had travelled up to the Dockland area with her on the night she was attacked .Margaret stated at the inquest that she had last seen her talking with a man wearing dark clothes and a white scarf at the corner of Burdett Road and Farrance Street in Limehouse.This spot was more or less at the junction of the East India and West India Dock Roads not far from where Rose Mylett was found.
Cheers Joe

Norma